Photoclubalpha

There's an interesting post on dPreview:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read. ... e=34126085

What this post fails to mention is the 70-210mm f/4 was a radical rework of the earlier MD design, which in turn was jointly developed with Leitz. It is not identical, and uses both an internal zoom (non-extending) and a front cell focus with relatively minimal effect on focal length. The 1.1m close focus is unusually good for a lens which does not reduce in focal length much, giving it a very good close-up ability,

It was designed and built at the Sakai optical works, along with the 28-135mm, the macro lenses and most of the initial flow of AF optics. As such, it was almost hand-made (eight people per lens). Design-wise it suffered from lack of attention to internal baffles and effective coating, so can flare up into the light. And it was not made to handle the unusual behaviour of digital sensors (CA and purple fringes, which are not the same issue, even if similar).

I owned one continuously from 1985 - I owned three in total, and only recently decided to sell. Even then, I am not sure selling was the right thing!

David

The 70-210 f4 (AKA Beercan) is popular basically for three reasons:
1 it is cheap
2 Nor Minolta, Konica Minolta or Sony have brought (yet) a replacement with a similar quality (the f 4.5-5.6 version ain't that good, and the f 3.5-4.5 supposedly is as good as the f 4 but... who knows!)
3 It is, after all, a good lens.

I bought mine 5 years ago not because the trend, but because I was shopping for a tele zoom and I didn't want to lose 1 stop at the far end of the lens. The sales guy (at Adorama) offer me the 3.5-4.5 as been better because smaller and faster focusing. The f 3.5-4.5 is smaller, but I don't think it will focus faster: I tested the Beercan against the Sony 70-200 f 2.8 and the Tamron 70-200 f 2.8 and the Beercan was faster than the Tamron (a little surprised on this) and more accurate too -au pair with the Sony 70-200f 2.8. I sold it anyway without regrets and I keep the Tamron because the closest focus and the f 2.8. and because I sold it for twice the price I paid for it.

As a lot of people here and in other forums, I think Sony have to bring more lenses, primes and zooms, in a mid range price (but good performers!) Now that I have the a850 I would love to buy a 35mm f2.8 and a 24mm f 2.8 The first one doesn't exist -the f 1.4 is too expensive and apparently there is a f 2 version, but I've never seen it... The new 30mm F 2.8 Macro on FF version would be perfect!

I hesitated about the Minolta 24mm been not good enough for digital (I was really disappointed with the Minolta 28 f 2.

Rumors are that we will see lots of new lenses this year, I hope I'll find what i want.

Regards

I agree it's a good lens, the only reason I passed on one was I felt the 100-200mm f4.5 would suit me better (much more compact)

These lenses come from a past era of robust build, that you just won't find again. Just compare even the plastic build back then to today, lenses such as the 50mm f1.7, v the new 1.8 SAM, not even in the same league. Not that Sony are alone, the Canon f1.8 is pretty hmm build wise too.

Chances of getting a 70-200 or 70-210mm F4 new design/lens from Sony, are slim to none, and even if we did, it would not be cheap. Sony have an opportunity to do damage with SSS v Canon and Nikon..just look at the price of the Canon 70-200mm f4 IS, but they won't grasp this..shame.

David Kilpatrick wrote:... the 70-210mm f/4 was a radical rework of the earlier MD design ...

I am pretty sure the Minolta AF 70-210 mm 1:4 lens (a.k.a. "Beercan") is optically identical to its immediate predecessor, the MD 70-210 mm 1:4 lens, or only a minor rework at most.

Both use the old-style tele zoom design which doesn't extend when zooming. Both use a front-part focusing mechanism which rotates the filter threads when focusing. Both have a minimum focusing distance of 1.1 m and a maximum magnification of 1:4 (0.25×). Both are 12 elements in 9 groups. The MD has a barrel length of 153 mm, the AF is 152 mm, the difference of 1 mm accounts for the difference of the flange distances of the SR mount and the A mount precisely. Their weights are similar: 635 g for the MD; 695 g for the AF.

The Minolta AF 70-210 mm 1:3.5-4.5 then was a radical rework, using the modern zoom mechanism which significantly extends when zooming. It has 12 elements in 12 groups, is 100 mm long when fully retracted and 160 mm when fully extended, and it weighs 420 g.

Also the MD 70-210's predecessor, the MD Zoom Rokkor 75-200 mm 1:4.5, was different from the MD 70-210 mm 1:4 but not radically so. It used the same principles for zooming and for focusing but was 15 elements in 11 groups. In my opinion, the "Beercan" is very good but the MD 75-200 was even better; I consider it the pinnacle of Minolta's medium telephoto zoom lenses.

All three Minolta medium telephoto zoom lenses of this range, i. e. the MC Zoom Rokkor 80-200 mm 1:4.5, the MD Zoom Rokkor 75-200 mm 1:4.5, and the MD 70-210 mm 1:4, also were available as Vario-Elmar-R lenses for the Leicaflex and Leica R cameras.

-- Olaf

Sorry Olaf - by radical I did not mean extreme (as in the political use today). I just meant radical - i.e. basic, essential, root, source...

The Nikon of the same date is remarkably similar.

David

I class the MD70-210 f4 as a lovely lens so I couldn't part with mine, it's in the bag with the X700's and other lenses (all carefully cleaned) at the bottom of a wardrobe.
I tend to agree with David in one sense, (optically as Olaf says, they may be very similar of course), but if you think about comparing the MD against the AF version there has been quite a radical re-design, they took the blasted f-stop ring off the lens for one thing and then they made it into an AF lens as well, (a complete travesty at the time, if you care to cast your mind back) and not only that they had electrical contacts inserted into it's rear end along with a microchip....kaf kaf
Real photography was being replaced by gimmicks...hmmm haven't we heard that one somewhere before....time marches goes on.
Greg

David Kilpatrick wrote:Sorry Olaf - by radical I did not mean extreme (as in the political use today). I just meant radical - i.e. basic, essential, root, source ...

"Radically different/reworked" = based on a different root, reworked from the grounds up, created after different design principles.

The Minolta AF 70-210 mm 1:4 "Beercan" basically (or maybe fully) shares the glass with the immediate predecessor, the MD 70-210 mm 1:4; it is not (or hardly) reworked optically. They took what they had and just created a new barrel for it. That's the point when discussing the merits of this lens and why it is so popular until today.

Of course, with regard to the mechanics it is a radical rework indeed---it's got auto-focus and a new (incompatible) mount, the zoom ring is no push-pull anymore but rotates, and it lost the aperture ring. But that's not actually the point in today's discussions. With regard to optical performance, these aspects are insignificant.

A significant but not radical rework, optically, was the switch from the MD 75-200 to the MD 70-210. A radical rework definitely was the switch from the AF 70-210/4 to the AF 70-210/3.5-4.5. But the switch from the MD 70-210 to the AF 70-210 cannot be described as a "radical rework" ... except when you're referring to the switch from the old manual-focus system to the new AF system which however is just a rework of the lens' mechanics, not the optics.

David Kilpatrick wrote:The Nikon of the same date is remarkably similar.

Yes, it is ... but still it's a different design created by a different team of lens designers from a different company, albeit after the same basic design principles.

-- Olaf

Was the Beercan ever offered in the white finish?

Dusty

Dusty wrote:Was the Beercan ever offered in the white finish?

Dusty

On my side, the only special version I saw of the 70-210mm F/4.0 was a transparent version, where you were able to see all the mechanism for the focus drive and zoom mechanic.

Regards,

Frank

Never white or silver to my knowledge. The first white Dynax (8000i, I don't there was a white 7000i earlier than the 8000i) had a white matching 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5.

David

Any chance someone has both the Beercan and the other Minolta 70-210? I'd like to see side-by-side pics of the 2 so I can tell them apart, if possible, on sites like e-bay.

There are some people who don't know which one they have, and if you ask them and they post the results, you get out-bid by the ensuing "Beercan Mania". I'd like to spot one and grab it at a really good price.

If anyone also has any good pics of the Big Beercan verses other Min 75-300 lenses, I would appreciate that, too.

Thanks,
Dusty

Here Dusty

I don't have the other lenses but here is the beercan and 75-300 (BBC) side by side. The BBC is the only one that has the rotating focus limit switch on the side.

BBC on the right with the hoods on (heh should have picked a diferrent shot for this one)


BBC on the right zoomed all the way (beercan stays the same size, zoom is internal)

Dusty wrote:Any chance someone has both the Beercan and the other Minolta 70-210? I'd like to see side-by-side pics of the 2 so I can tell them apart, if possible

I've a near-miss to your comparison, with 2nd-gen 70-210 up against the 100-200. The Beercan is too much weight for me, and I surprised myself in winning a 100-200 at auction. I really didn't want competition for the 70-210, I liked its range; still, it had let me down wide open a few times so for $40US why not let it compete for the job?

In a leisurely walkabout in the neighborhood, I found little difference and each took great images. http://picasaweb.google.com/alphaPDX/RAWtest# has those images.

Then I tried tripod shots of the local power pole, at 180mm f/5 and again with 1.7x TC (300mm effective). In those shots the 100-200 was a clear winner, even after reshooting the f/3.5-4.5 to give it a better chance. At 300mm effective the 100-200 also won over the Tamron LD 70-300.

Left to right: 70-210 f/3.5-4.5, 100-200 f/4.5, LD 70-300 -- all supposedly focused on bracket


I've let the others go & kept the 100-200 despite its condition (gritty zoom ring, scrape on front element); it's just as sharp, a smidge lighter and more consistent when the light is low. Otherwise they're both very good (my 70-210 did not creep like many copies).

also see http://picasaweb.google.com/alphaPDX/LiteBeer# for 70-210, and
http://picasaweb.google.com/alphaPDX/min100200# for 100-200